Why the study?
Do less-invasive haemodynamic monitoring devices reliably track cardiac output and improve outcomes compared to pulmonary artery catheters in the perioperative setting?
Do less-invasive haemodynamic monitoring devices reliably track cardiac output and improve outcomes compared to pulmonary artery catheters in the perioperative setting?
Less-invasive haemodynamic monitoring devices are reliable alternatives to the pulmonary artery catheter for perioperative cardiac output tracking and optimization.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support less-invasive monitoring in perioperative optimization; leaves open confirmation of outcome benefits by randomized trials.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A number of less-invasive haemodynamic monitoring devices have been introduced in recent years, largely replacing the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) as a standard monitoring tool. Apart from tracking cardiac output (CO), these monitors provide additional haemodynamic parameters. The aim of this article is to review the most widely used less-invasive monitoring modalities, their technical characteristics and limitations regarding their clinical performance. RECENT FINDINGS: The utilization of CO monitoring in the perioperative setting has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes if integrated into a haemodynamic optimization strategy. These findings provide the basis of recent recommendations for perioperative monitoring. SUMMARY: An array of monitoring modalities have been introduced that can reliably track CO in the perioperative setting and make the PAC dispensable in most clinical situations. In order to be used safely and efficiently, knowledge regarding the inherent monitoring techniques and their limitations, their clinical validity and the utility of the parameters provided is crucial.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Geisen et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: